Tuesday, 6 May 2014



No wonder people many people have little interest in politics and less appreciation for the arcane arts of broad humbug via politicians. Why - even journalists are guilty of bringing democratic processes into disrepute.

Take the current issue de jour - the government's proposed repeal of section 18C of the Human Rights Act.
Most of the players trying to defend the proposal via the 'Freedom Of Expression' perspective have deliberately distorted the issues lest they concede to those who disagree with them. Arguably this is the way of politics. it has always been so.

But worse; try reading editorials, articles and letters espousing ''sacrifices in the pursuit of freedom and free speech'' published in The Australian for example on merely Tuesday 6/5. Such grandiose verbiage.
Remember the infamous quote:

Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel: Samuel Johnson

And The Oz not for the first time, continues the ignoble loosing fight in the editorial of 6/5.

Indeed - it has been obvious for a good while that they will have to get used to 18C; it will remain more or less as is.


Note Warren Mundine wrote on April 1 in  The Australian.

''As it happens, under the new laws people can incite hatred against Jewish people while participating in public discussion of a wide range of subjects. Holocaust deniers will have a wide berth to peddle their misinformation. Evidently, the drafters didn’t manage to find a form of words that would allow Bolt’s comments on the one hand but prevent public hate speech on the other.''

The key is the  last sentence. So much rubbish has elsewhere been  promoting the idea that freedom of speech trumps the responsibility for same! Why have we seen three letters from The League of Rights promoting unilateral freedom?
Will the next debate be the above or whether the Nazis should have finished the job? The new  Thin edge of the wedge? Who would have believed a mere few years ago that Jews would be attacked in the streets?
Mundine was unfairly lacerated by a professor of law a few days later. A travesty.

 Note the op ed in The Oz on 29 March, 2014

Comment from gs:this article is imbecilic

 at best! My extreme language is justified 

- not the least because of this:

Nor, in Australia, has the controversial Section 18C of the RDA prevented a
 21 per cent increase in the number of reports of racist violence directed at
 individuals or Jewish facilities in the past year. That disturbing trend is a 
good reason for open debate and the airing of grievances, to allow
 them to be dealt with by rational, sensible argument.''t 




Note that Jews are now encouraged to believe that being attacked requires them to accept that it is their fault, we should debate it with criminals - and LO! Even the 18C is being blamed for not preventing the attacks!

And on 30/4 the editorial of the Oz wrote:

''Unfortunately for Jewish Australians who hold a multiplicity of views, the main organisations dedicated to the defense of Israel, the Middle East’s only functioning democracy, have taken a narrow approach. On its website, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, published a rebuttal to Professor Dershowitz’s Wednesday article. The rebuttal, by Peter Wertheim, said all the peak Jewish national bodies in Australia were united in opposition to plans to alter the RDA. Their stand, paradoxically, is in line with many of Israel’s most trenchant critics from the left of the Australian media.
Some within the Jewish diaspora disagree with the organisations’ official line. Such individuals know that majority or official opinion among any group is not necessarily always right. Many racial and religious groups, including Jews, have learned, that lesson at vast and painful cost through history. Free choice, including opposition to cultural coercion, was one of the 10 founding principles of Israel, which is also a good reason for respecting dissenting views.''

Anyone should be able to see that those troublesome creatures have no rights 

  1. To majority opinion [''majority are ''not necessarily right'']
  2. Free choice.. but some have been guilty of ''cultural coercion''!
  3. The what about breaking ''the founding principles of Israel?
These are virtually blood libels!

The reconfiguring of bigotry via the comment from George Brandis was irresponsible. I think he realizes it now.

'People have a right to be bigots': PM defends Attorney ...

No they do not, Mr Brandis! Because in front of our eyes we already have the long silent 'League' gleefully claiming  glory by their publications in mainstream media. Writers have also shifted the arena by claiming that we can defend ourselves in a debate. 
Oh the dozens of cliched twirpery in disparate articles insisting the that there exists a ''marketplace of ideas''
that will not skew t

Is that all there is to it?

The reader should note that the mid point has already shifted.

But - to set a new mid - point - ANY debating point of debate for the greatest tragedy / mass - murder in history, is unspeakable!

 This mid point is as follows. Yad Vashem is still struggling to find the names of the 6 million who perished. So, is there anyone who wishes to debate that there were only 5,950,000 Jews murdered?
Is the mid point agreed to be agreed to - to be 5, 975,000?

AND in the act of debating the holocaust - THAT is exactly what happens!
An inevitable by -  product of allowing this will indubitably, invariably set up the very idea that the fact of the matter is debatable! I suggest that there has never been a greater obscenity than this newly - created 'mid - point' in vulgarism.
This mid point is as follows. Yad Vashem is still struggling to find the names of the 6 million who perished. So, is there anyone who wishes to espouse there were only 5,950,000 Jews murdered?
Is the mid point agreed to as 5, 975,000?

 Or will the next debate be the above or whether the Nazis should have finished the job? 
Heck NO! I withdraw this corollary - this mere cliche -  in the sense that it will never come to that, never.
Surely there will always be decent people who will never allow it to descend to hypothesizing about how Hitler could have murdered 10 million? Then there would be no - one to have written this. But the twirps could debate what a victorious Hitler would have done?

May be those same cavalier people who today ignorantly espouse freedom of speech for incipient defacto Nazis on the AXIS of the contextually - untenable 'freedom' of speech moniker, should become aware what the ill - thought consequences will be. It is essentially decreptitudinous and dastardly.

Oh - I make this comment_ people should be wary of getting into proverbial bed with the League of Rights: The Australian has published 3 letters in the last few weeks to the editor by these entities. Beware ye all!
And The Australian has been disgraceful in all ways!
I do a partial  cut and paste from their astonishing editorial from early April as here.

  1. understood by few; mysterious or secret.
    "arcane procedures for electing people"

  1. Amity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Amity, a word which means "friendship", can refer to: Look up amity in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. Contents. 1 Places in the United States; 2 Education ...

  2. enmity

    noun: enmity; plural noun: enmities
    1. a state or feeling of active opposition or hostility.
      "decades of enmity between the two countries"

No comments:

Post a Comment